After the 'Death of God': Friedrich Nietzsche and Paul Tillich 

Starts at 7:40.

Brilliant! Various concepts of God; I think Tillich, Spinoza may have been on to the truth as God being a being, ' God as Spirit' and The Courage to be. Thank you very much.

Starts at 6:00.😉

WTF?! Did everyone in the room want to do an introduction? How about “ladies and gentlemen, I give you yada yada”?

Wonderful. Thank you

Richard Schacht wrote an excellent book on Nietzsche's philosophy. I only wish more authors of Schacht's caliber would publish critical books on individual books by Nietzsche. I would love to read a book on Nietzsche's Antichrist(s). I would like to read everything that's *wrong* about that book. I can see a plethora of errors in some of Nietzsche's books, but I'm not a philosopher, a theologian, or a philologist (Nietzsche's perfect reader!). Hopefully, those books are on their way.

One can't complain because Q&A was available at the end but still has to wonder how the most influential forces the concept and relevance of Being were not mentioned. Nietzsche said one had to have long legs to climb tall mountains but not that long where it could be interpolated that his Death of God had to do with the End of God as a Being.

Clear, informative presentation until the last minute! Answering the third and final question, he says he would rather place Nietzsche in the analytic tradition than the continental one, because Nietzsche prizes painstaking rationality in reasoning. I find it staggering that such a respected commentator on Nietzsche can so lackadaisically join others in the absurd misrepresentation of the programme of deconstruction as compromising on philosophical rigour.

Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy was scathing in his chapter on Nietzsche, calling his work the "mere power-phantasies of an invalid" and referring to Nietzsche as a "megalomaniac". Russell is here depicting the "hard Nietzsche" very few today would recognize. Russell's psychological daggers against Nietzsche are unbalanced, but worth considering. In one particularly harsh section, he says: It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all of the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "Forget not thy whip"-- but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks. [...] [H]e is so full of fear and hatred that spontaneous love of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of the man who, with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain because he has no wish to do so. Does any one suppose that Lincoln acted as he did from fear of hell? Yet to Nietzsche, Lincoln is abject, Napoleon magnificent. [...] I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-conscious ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end. - Russell, History of Western Philosophy

Very helpful. But why didn’t Tillich take the obvious next step, and accept the hint from Ockham?

Conception and perception will create things.

We are a phenomenon; transitory, illusionary and beyond our own control

Did anyone understand any of this?

I'm not sure you should thank someone that encourages you to be a professional philosopher.

The introductions end at 6 minutes. Start there. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rj3AntBLBQY.html

the volume of introductions and preambles in this video is preposterous and laughed at.

Paul Tillich: “God cannot be an object of faith without also being the subject of man's faith.” Am I misunderstanding the speaker’s representation of Tillich’s thought on the person of God, the divine being? The quotes by other responders makes this clear.

What Matters Most.

Why can't they edit out the nearly 20 minute preface on videos like this? We want to see/hear the substance. The prefatory remarks are so in the way 🙄

When you have come to certain dead end that is left-brained, visually-based, language-based logic and rational existentialism, you confront the great chasm, the great Nothingness, the total meaninglessness, a void of hope and purpose, the belly of the whale, the emptiness of all meaning and purpose and the edge of sanity. At that point of existentialist despair, I step off the cliff, a bold and pure step of faith, in spite of all my left brain linguistic logic saying the is no God, there is no purpose for life or living - in that moment of pure psychic nothingness, I step into pure being, and a God of mystical meaning and compassion materializes before me and builds a bridge beneath my feet, with each step as I blindly am led forward by heart (cor Latin) courage. Not logic but pure courage to lean into despair and emptiness and all the logic against existence of either myself or God. But I will believe in spite of all the logic against it, through an act of pure faith alone, and The experience of God and pure being materializes within me. God is not a thing or a noun, but an intimate encounter with pure being, life and love simultaneously. Heaven is in the present moment. The present moment is eternal and miraculous Presence...the encounter IS God, born from faith alone, in the face of a all the logic that says it is not, I believe in it anyway, and my pure irrational faith opens the doorway to pure connection with mystical reality, mystical God, mystical experience of God-Being. That is my proof. I lived it and God built a bridge beneath my feet as I stepped into the insanity of Nothingness and meaninglessness with only Pure Faith and I will never be the same. I stepped into nothingness in pure faith and was filled with Sacred Presence...that is God beyond God...an experience - a profound, life-giving moment of eternity and pure being. Behold and be held in the rapture of God beyond God.

Interesting!

This is how church sermons ought to be in the modern, civilized world.

Cheery bunch!😅

1:17:50 of repetitive gibberish. Nice suit though. Thank you. Next time I’ll watch Peter Sellers in, Being There.

Great talk, but I don't see a problem with God being the one being encompassing all. We extrapolate the term from ourselves, and when we talk of our self, we talk primarily of our "self", and of our body, which our self rises from and images, secondarily. As selves, we desire the most perfect, most powerful, most encompassing one, and that desire rises from our experience of being in the All, and reaches out in love to encompass it. Paul, the apostle, and Spinoza had it right: The Universe is our body, and we are a being.

34:48 I sort of feel like, as soon as you read that in someones work, you put the work down, and you don't look at it again.

"When sophisticated theologians talk about god, one quickly finds oneself wandering around in a rhetorical fog in which god becomes a constantly shape-shifting entity described by metaphors whose meanings are always just beyond one’s grasp. One has to struggle to understand what they are talking about because what these sophisticated thinkers imagine to be god is so far removed from what any ordinary person thinks that I have long suspected that they are actually atheists struggling to find a way to salvage belief in something transcendental that would not be seen as manifestly anti-science or otherwise ridiculous in the circle of intellectuals amongst whom they move." - Mano Singham

Tillich made you feel like you understood him but that was a illusion? You got punked!

This is hard to listen to. The reference to God being dead is a reference to the death of the thing in itself. The death of absolutism born out of Plato’s forms. Nietzsche denied the thing in itself and praised the sophists, those people who also denied absolutism and praised relativism. The death of God is the death of the Good (Plato’s Republic)

My first impressions, Tillich is like Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, full off abstractions, full of gobbledygook, using words in special ways, therefore incomprehensibility and therefore must contain deep,deep, profound insights.

Christianity is based on belief in a personal God. The God of the Old Testament and Jesus the Christ, the Savior. Plus the Holy Spirit. If you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus and the reality of the personal God, you’re simply not a Christian. Tillich can hardly be considered a Christian at all if he conceived God as Being or “the ground of Being”. Or some vague life-force. Or “the power of being, itself”.

Nietzsche would have laughed at being discussed alongside a theologian....LOL

Analytical philosophy? Boooo!

If you stretch it that far, you might as well relate Nietzsche's ideas with St. Paul's, or even Mother Theresa's. Let alone that this talk is a huge misinterpretation of Nietzsche's ideas and completely failing to see and recognize the subtleties of his thought. Third, has this Tillich had anything original to say? For all I heard was Heidegger's idea of being. Nietzsche rightly foresaw that after the death of god there will still be some churches left, sepulchers of god. I suspect one might find Tillich there.

You haven't been reading your Gnostic classics Professor Schacht! God above god is obviously the Monad, above the god of this universe, who you would know under a different name - had you done your reading...